Appeal No. 2007-0534
Application No. 10/463,016
The examiner acknowledges that Silver does not expressly disclose the spatial
proximity between the target domain and the variable component, as claimed. Id.
However, the examiner concludes "such [a] determination would have been obvious in
view of the teachings of Silver that the proteins are located physically within an
appropriate distance of one another such that FRET occurs" and that one "would be
motivated to determine such spatial proximity since. . . Silver taught this would indicate
[a] definite interaction (modulation, as claimed) of the proteins. " Id. at 6-7.
In response, Appellants contend that the method of Silver does not function in a
manner equivalent to the claimed method. Brief, page 14. Appellants argue that in the
claimed method, the known binding partners force a test protein (variable component)
into proximity with the protein of interest (active domain) to determine whether the test
protein modulates the activity of the protein of interest. They assert the modulation
event is detected by means independent of the binding partners.
In contrast, Appellants argue that in the Silver method, "the binding of a test
protein with a protein [of] interest forces a fluorescent protein pair into proximity
generating a signal indicating that the interaction has occurred." Thus, Appellants argue
Silver is the reverse of the claimed method. Brief, pages 14-15.
The examiner, however, responds and argues that the claims do not recite a
distinguishing feature over the methods of Silver and that each of the methods employ
similar method steps. Answer, page 17.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013